Republican Monarchist Debate
|
Monarchies Around the World |
Australia,
Canada, the
United Kingdom, and
New Zealand all share a common language and have republican reform movements of varying strengths that seek to replace the current monarchy of the UK over the commonwealth with a constitutional Republic.
1 Monarchists have responded with websites and movements supporting the Monarchy.
2From a political science perspective the current debate is interesting as it is public, published via the internet, and has an international basis to some extent across the commonwealth nations in the form of Common Cause, an international Republican movement linking the national ones.
*
Monarchy denies The People a basic rightRepublicans argue that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their Head of State, and that such a head of state is more accountable to the people.
*
Monarchy devalues a parliamentary system Ceremonial parliamentary events can include a mass of obsolete customs and out of date procedures to enhance the appearance of legitimacy. Monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability.
Example: The rules of the House of Commons in the
UK prevent Members of Parliament (MPs) from discussing the monarchy in the Chamber, and all MPs are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, irrespective of their personal beliefs.
*
Hereditary monarchy is discriminatory The monarchs themselves can only represent a single race by their simple existence.
*
A monarchy demands deference It is argued by Republicans that the very way citizens are required to address a royal family, even the most junior members, is part of an attempt to keep citizens 'in their place'.
*
It is the enemy of merit and aspiration Every child but one growing up in a Monarchy knows that, irrespective of their individual merit, they will never be 'good enough' to become Head of State.
*
It devalues intellect and achievement Republicans argue that Royals bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement.
*
It harms the monarchs themselvesRepublicans argue that a hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood that produces an abnormal individual as head of state.
*
Succession issuesSuccession issues force hurried decisions in an atmosphere of doubt and controversy. In the not too distant future the question succession is likely to arise in one of three ways:
1: Owing to age or infirmity, the Monarch or the Palace, may decide to delegate the monarch's duties to another member of the royal family. Republicans argue that heads of a modern state must be capable of personally fulfilling their duties. Otherwise they argue, they must be replaced, but democratically.
2: The Monarch may opt for abdication. Again, Republicans argue that the choice of the subsequent Head of State must be the peoples' and not that of a Palace.
3: The Monarch may die.
Whichever of these three situations arises a succession creates an urgent question that must be answered, often out of haste. Often, the people view the next-in-line with a lack of enthusiasm. In the example of the UK, Prince Charles seems to have suffered in some years from a lack of enthusiasm, even from Monarchists. The escape clause for such people has been to suggest that Prince William succeed instead. In this eventuality the UK would have a Head of State, barely out of childhood, with insufficient experience of the world, and who some would argue, lacks the training which is said to be part of the royal family's expertise. Proponents of this solution seem to overlook the restrictions of the UK's "constitution" which would prevent this from happening. Thus their "solution," argue Republicans, exposes the flaws of the hereditary system itself.
Summary:
Republicans generally argue that Hereditary Monarchy is the ultimate symbol of unfairness and elitism. In a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth. Such a system does not make for a society which is at ease with itself, and it encourages attitudes which are more suited to a bygone age of imperialism than to a modern nation. Maintaining a privileged royal family diminishes a society and encourages a feeling of dependency in many people who should instead have confidence in themselves and their fellow citizens.
'The people', should be sovereign, not the offspring of one family retained at public expense to occupy the top job in a state system, permanently.
*
Provides an impartial arbiterMonarchists Argue that an impartial symbolic Head of State is a step removed from politics, commercial and factional interests
*
Provides a focal point for traditionMonarchists argue that a
Constitutional Monarchy with limited powers, can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and
honours and national institutions
*
Provides links with other statesMonarchs tend to be linked with the monarchs of other nations, or in the case of the UK, the monarch is the head of state for the commonwealth nations.
*
A separation from government duties (in figurehead monarchies)Monarchists argue that separating the Head of State from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), Offers some advantages
*
Offers a bridge to non-governmental organizationsMonarchists argue that in a limited, constitutional Monarchy the monarch is able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc
*
Monarchies have staying powerMonarchists argue that Constitutional Monarchy creates a Head of State that is under the democratic control of Parliament but does not rotate and change on a short term basis
*
No divisive electionsConstitutional Monarchists argue that where elections are not needed they are only divisive, and that the head of state need not be elected.
*
The support of a royal familyMonarchists argue that the Monarch is the head of a Royal Family who can share duties and represent the Monarch. This argument applies that the cabinet appointed by an elected head of state is not as supportive as a royal family.
Example - The UK's Monarchy:
*
The Royals are busyThe Royals in the UK have documented an extensive lists of duties and functions that they carry out
*
The Royals are cheapThe annual expenditure, even by critics, is documented at around 100M pounds per year. On a per capita basis this is not very much money, or so argue consitutional monarchists
*
The Royals are popularThe Queen's
Jubilee was well attended and shows the Monarchy to be enjoying renewed popularity in England. 14,000 people were estimated to have attended this event.
*
Constitutional Monarchy*
Republic*
Elective Monarchy Note: Some Argue that in ancient times many monarchies started out as Eective, as opposed to Hereditary monarchies.
*
Constitution of the United Kingdom*
Golden Jubilee*
UK Republic Site *
UK Monarchy Site*
Australian Republic Site*
Canadian Republic Site*
New Zealand Republic Site
